I'm confused by this analysis. It cites no other resources beyond wikipedia, a dude's take on twitter, and an msn article when the other article actually has ci

I'm confused by this analysis. It cites no other resources beyond wikipedia, a dude's take on twitter, and an msn article when the other article actually has citations to other research. Where is your evidence that the 40% is "intentionally wrong; propaganda"? It's pointing to numerous other studies where the number ranges from 10 to 40% and examines why. This seems like a bad faith understanding of what the research is trying to accomplish.